Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
Azmith
New-Roots
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 09:38:59 -
[91] - Quote
I actually used teams quite a lot. They allow you to get quite a nice margin on high value items like bs, marauder, caps if you get a good ME team that is.
Its even worth ferrying all the materials 6 jumps or more from your trade hub if there is a good team there. The reason being that if you get one of the really good team like say 6.5% ME on a job that has a total volume of 6 bil then this saves you a whooping 390 million isk. This allows you to easily bid 400-800 mil on such a team which is exactly what happens.
A team like this in a system with a low enough cost index actually allows for a production of armageddons again while making a tiny profit (those of you who know about the massive flooding of armageddons from the materials change will know what I'm talking about)
I do agree that the auction system is broken. There should be a way to set a blind maximum bid that automatically matches other bids until they go above just like there is on real auction platforms particularly one big one *nudge nudge wink wink*
Its also true that nothing but ME is really useful at least for products where you build multiple runs. Because using multiple characters you can now easily split up that run into multiple smaller ones for an even larger bonus to manufacturing time due to having an infinite amount of industry lanes.
The only place where time teams make sense IMHO is capitals and other things that take a long time on a single run.
I think however that the decision to completely remove teams based on only a single digit of manufacturing jobs using them is a bit strange. I would rather be interested in the monetary value of these jobs taken together vs the value of the other 9x%.
I would bet that the money put into manufacturing with teams is proportionally higher PER job than for jobs without teams. See people manufacturing their own ammo from reprocessed loot or stuff like that where no one would ever use a team for.
I think as has been suggested allowing people to BUILD their own teams for personal use from single specialists recruited on the market would be a great idea. Make specialists producable by building universitys on planets. Also make speciailists not vanish over time but per use like the old RAM. In keeping with the Lore you set with teams using boosters that fry their brains after a single burst of glory. Make them one time use like decryptors for invention. This makes it a one time booster to manufacturing jobs that can actually be produced by players. This I think would decrease the complexity for the users while at the same time enriching the industry landscape. |
EnForceR Zealot
Trigger Happy Capsuleers Soviet-Union
3
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 09:45:50 -
[92] - Quote
CCP also remove shares, since nobody use them as you hoped. |
Anathema Device
State War Academy Caldari State
10
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 09:51:09 -
[93] - Quote
I never wanted the current team structure and I'm glad the current implementation is being removed.
I would like to see player industrial teams built along the lines of fleets i.e. equivalent structure to Fleet/Wing Commanders, Squad Leaders down to Squad members. Bonus flows down are based on the current fleet mechanic. Range of Industrial Fleet bonuses has system limitations like the current fleets. Anybody can be invited to join and how to handle declared enemies in the same squad or hierarchy is open for discussion. Science skills would flow down and may need a set of Leadership skills. Possibly use Industrial ships with Implants to provide higher boosts.
The aim is to foster co-operative team play at the System/Planet level for Industrialists and researchers |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
1264
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 09:51:47 -
[94] - Quote
Teams are absolutely essential for large-scale production. Which, presumably, is the problem.
The bidding/sniping mechanism was painfully stupid though. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Corelum Syndicate
1069
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 10:03:43 -
[95] - Quote
You do not leave the game in a good shape for players as you remove a feature from the game that many players like and use. I does not matter to these players if they are not thousands, it does not matter to them if you have too high expectations and want thousands of players to use features. What matters to them is that you remove a gameplay feature from the game that they like and use a lot, and that gives them an edge over those players who don't dare to use it; henceforth, you just even out the field again, remove choice and make the game yet again more bland and less flavored.
The teams work and the auctions work in their particular way. People who complain about the sniping are just bad at either sniping or bidding on the right teams for their needs and they are bad at planning their activities and adjusting to the availability of teams they want to have. I have bid on a couple of teams and always got those I wanted or my secondary choices. I got this by sniping and because I could wait. Some players bid on teams way too early and show that there is a demand for them to other players. With teams removed this is a feature removed that allows for a variety of gameplay aspects, from advantages in industry, information gathering to cooperation between players. The UI for the teams works, auctions work, their application in the jobs works, everything works and is only in need for adjustments or better processes in case of the auctions. Nothing you would change on the teams would fundamentally change their behavior like the Industry changes in themselves did with their introduction. You can only make them better once you get back to Industry. Removing them just takes the pressure and the reminder away from your conscience that they are there and that you are definitely not finished with bettering the Industry part of the game. Leaving them ingame in their current state does no harm to the game and the players and as you can't change them as starkly as the industry in itself, also expectations of players can't be missed when they are adjusted at a later stage.
In conclusion: You leave Industry, the most important feature of the game, unfinished, you remove features of Industry which don't meet your exorbitantly high expectations and you move on to the next feature of the game that is indeed in dire need or change and a reset, leaving players to wonder whether you continue that very same path there as well, on which you started to walk with Industry: start something and leave it unfinished.
|
Jaron Nal
Kane Tech Investment Group
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 10:49:23 -
[96] - Quote
In general I like the idea of teams.
I'm against removing them totally. I think the main problem is the bidding system.
A idea to fix this is:
- reduce the auction time (maybe 2 days or even 1 day. This includes a much faster seedingtime etc.)
- maybe break the teams down to only have 2 boni. 1 general bonus and 1 focues bonus So it is easier for a player to get a specific team because if you want for example a top team for starbases but is has aswell a top bonus for let's say attack cruisers you will not get the team because other guys are bidding for the attack cruiser bonus.
and the most important thing: - do something against sniping. An idea from me was that there is a time before the auction ends(for example 1h). After this time your bids don't cost 100%, they scale up with the time past. So for example if there are only 30 mins left your bid would cost 200%. If there are only 15 mins left it costs 400%. And so on. (Maybe the numbers have to be higher)
This system would give someone who really wants a team a a chance to get a team and not to get sniped in the last second.
So everything I want to say is: Please don't remove the teams completly. Try to fix the problem of sniping and the auctionstime. |
Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
65
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 11:11:10 -
[97] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:Well, I never used them. For much of my industry, they would not have helped, so there was no reason to. For the rest, it seemed to be a high complexity task for a chance at a small gain, and not worth the effort. I could get more gain by spending that time mining another load of ore.
Agreed.
Nice storyline idea became too much abstract RP with NPC for miserly gains.
If you reimplement, consider allowing significant gains but then you can temper that by allowing player to some how attack teams to decrease their effects. I am sure pirates would leap at new target for creating tears. Thus you would dangle a nice prize for industry but ensure that there was no guarantee that the time and ISK investment would actually turn into license to print ISK. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Corelum Syndicate
1069
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 11:23:24 -
[98] - Quote
Proddy Scun wrote:Vincent Athena wrote:Well, I never used them. For much of my industry, they would not have helped, so there was no reason to. For the rest, it seemed to be a high complexity task for a chance at a small gain, and not worth the effort. I could get more gain by spending that time mining another load of ore. Agreed. Nice storyline idea became too much abstract RP with NPC for miserly gains. If you reimplement, consider allowing significant gains but then you can temper that by allowing player to some how attack teams to decrease their effects. I am sure pirates would leap at new target for creating tears. Thus you would dangle a nice prize for industry but ensure that there was no guarantee that the time and ISK investment would actually turn into license to print ISK. That is additional complexity should be a somewhat risky but potentially very profitable investment. Not tedious twiddling with yield equations for insignificant change. Complexity? What complexity do you mean? Bidding on a team is 2 clicks and a bit of keyboard piano. Selecting them is easy as the game preselects the possible teams for a task. Calculating their impact is easy as tools and spreadsheets take that over all the necessary calculations.
I also would not call 500M more profit in caps or a couple hundred more for small/medium ships per industry cycles in my case a "miserly [sic!] gain". |
Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
65
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 11:25:30 -
[99] - Quote
Also there is a bit of question as to whether teams are something intended mainly for
(1) big Null sec coalitions and alliances which have ways of raising real big ISK for very large stable groups.
or
(2) Empire player corps and alliance which on average are much smaller and not linked into stable coalitions able to raise astronomical venture ISK capital.
If answer 2 (where CCP itself says most industry remains) is to be a big part of the team usage -- consider a new type of contract.
A contract where various unassociated players, player corps and player alliance can all throw money in for some ordinarily unaffordable purchase (mainly teams to start). And if the ISK goal is not met by the deadline, the individual contributions are returned minus some administrative fees or %age. |
Ren Kavik
Gallente Embassy
10
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 11:29:53 -
[100] - Quote
Teams where and still are a good idea.
Make the bonus worth the effort not the marginal decrease in production costs that it is now.
The market fluctuations determine the profitabillity of all items.
Fluctuations in the market range from 80% to 120% depending on the size of the items(larger items have smaller margins).
Form that perspective a bonus of a few percent to production with a team is almost worthless.
And lol you need to pay for the team to.
So yeah they are really worthless after you take that in to account.
What good are they in there current state?
MAKE IT WORTH DOING!
Or just remove them and throw them on the pile of unfinished projects. |
|
Pak Narhoo
Splinter Foundation
1508
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 11:57:16 -
[101] - Quote
Miranda Katarn wrote:Thank god
Useless feature was useless.
Yeah, what's more I feared that down the road this would lead to having to hire ship crews.
|
Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
65
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 11:58:16 -
[102] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Proddy Scun wrote:Vincent Athena wrote:Well, I never used them. For much of my industry, they would not have helped, so there was no reason to. For the rest, it seemed to be a high complexity task for a chance at a small gain, and not worth the effort. I could get more gain by spending that time mining another load of ore. Agreed. Nice storyline idea became too much abstract RP with NPC for miserly gains. If you reimplement, consider allowing significant gains but then you can temper that by allowing player to some how attack teams to decrease their effects. I am sure pirates would leap at new target for creating tears. Thus you would dangle a nice prize for industry but ensure that there was no guarantee that the time and ISK investment would actually turn into license to print ISK. That is additional complexity should be a somewhat risky but potentially very profitable investment. Not tedious twiddling with yield equations for insignificant change. Complexity? What complexity do you mean? Bidding on a team is 2 clicks and a bit of keyboard piano. Selecting them is easy as the game preselects the possible teams for a task. Calculating their impact is easy as tools and spreadsheets take that over all the necessary calculations. I also would not call 500M more profit in caps or a couple hundred more for small/medium ships per industry cycles in my case a "miserly [sic!] gain".
LOL - think that your response is the hallmark of EVE. There is always some small number of people who can exploit the worst features for nice profit...often in ways that 99% of the players would demand RL money to do. This feature was not that bad really - just not great for most EVE industrialists.
Yes a few very rich individuals can profit much more than the average hi sec player mining-industrial corp with lots of members (ones that spend more time mining than they spend market trading for minerals). But yes if you are big enough those tiny team changes can be big in absolute value (3% on 10B is nice if you turn that over quickly and reliably all month).
Limitation of significant team profitability to the hands of a few big trader-industrialists with big pockets would mean that only a few teams need to be hired...which is what happened.
I assume these folk stockpile mineral first or freighted in all the minerals then concentrated on just building a relatively few massively expensive hulls. Thus minimizing the number of people and sales locations involved to keep from having to divide up that nice lump sum gain across many corp members or spend too much time selling. Almost more a lone or small trader's corp market game than full industrial...except of course you are manufacturing one class of big ticket items.
So you are 100% correct if the intent is to effect only a narrow area of industry and few people with a very specialized approach to accomplishing that manufacture. However most those CCP teams (modules etc) do not apply to that most profitable area.
Bottomline: Most hi sec player corps are not big enough to mine and build that many ships etc to realize the full potential of team gains. At least not doing the full industry cycle including mining. Plus of course other corp can flock to teams system and drive up costs. And even nice big lumps of absolute profit can turn out to be not much change when divided across 100+ corp members.
|
Wizzard117
Viziam Amarr Empire
17
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 12:22:30 -
[103] - Quote
Teams have some use for large-scale ship construction With this change there will be no need for industrialists to scratch their heads and think - "Should I cooperate with industrial team or not" - "On what conditions it will become profitable" - about pre-planning their industrial jobs - ... and more Removing options and making this game less "sandboxy" just because this doesn't work as intended isn't really a good thing. Especially considering industrial teams doesn't really break the game in any way. I suggest to revert this decision and leave this as is until you have a better plan.
like 4lvl research agents have no use for now yet they're still in game as is. Their no-use doesn't break the game as well. They left as is until you have a better plan for them.
Removing teams is bad. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Corelum Syndicate
1072
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 12:30:35 -
[104] - Quote
Proddy Scun wrote: Bottomline: Most hi sec player corps are not big enough to mine and build that many ships etc to realize the full potential of team gains. At least not doing the full industry cycle including mining. Plus of course other corp can flock to teams system and drive up costs. And even nice big lumps of absolute profit can turn out to be not much change when divided across 100+ corp members.
And where is the problem here? I do my industry alone, occasionally and when I feel like it. I buy my minerals, in case that I want to build T1 ships, with buy orders and haul them to my preferred production plant myself. I do buy stuff for T2 production with sell orders. I do, against my posts prior to the release of teams, use them every now and then for my production and in particular in the T2 market they give me the much needed extra percent of profit to make the lengthy production of the T2 components, the lengthy production of T2 modules/ships and the lengthy logistics and sell process actually worthwhile. I do produce in a system that is not particularly interesting for the big industrial conglomerates as it is a bit more remote and would require them to put more effort into logistics and thus reduce their margins. There is no need for that all people can reap the full advantages of a feature equally. Some profit more from it because they invest more effort, manpower, time and braincells into it than others. That is perfectly fine, and actually beneficial if it happens. There is no need that everyone benefits equally from everything by approaching these things from different directions. Forcing this on the players is a big mistake.
But I see CCP's and the CSM's main reason behind the removal of teams: They allow players to make money without being in space. That is apparently something that neither can allow to happen anymore. The only ways to make money should be in missions, anoms DEDs/exploration. Sitting in station and making money does not put players into enough risk. /s
|
Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
65
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 12:45:42 -
[105] - Quote
Wizzard117 wrote:Teams have some use for large-scale ship construction With this change there will be no need for industrialists to scratch their heads and think - "Should I cooperate with industrial team or not" - "On what conditions it will become profitable" - about pre-planning their industrial jobs - ... and more Removing options and making this game less "sandboxy" just because this doesn't work as intended isn't really a good thing. Especially considering industrial teams doesn't really break the game in any way. I suggest to revert this decision and leave this as is until you have a better plan.
like 4lvl research agents have no use for now yet they're still in game as is. Their no-use doesn't break the game as well. They left as is until you have a better plan for them.
Removing teams is bad.
Another response pointing that teams are great for a few really big players and niche corp filling big contracts. Capital ship parts, orders of 100s of cruisers without going crazy with managing a ton of market orders across dozens of toons and locations? Must have connections with some entity that buys 100s of cruisers and 1000s of capital parts.
Smells like teams are great for big industrial suppliers to larger null sec coalitions. Usually a small and somewhat exclusive player group (with multiple toons that hardly ever leave station). No real surprise.
But I think CCP's point was that teams did not involve or help large numbers of EVE industrialist...most of whom are in corps with 30+ members and doing a wide variety of industrial activity from the mining ore upperward. thus they are not specialized to take the cream jobs (get discount mats on big buy orders and just do final assembly) or operate on large enough volume products - nor do they have the access to exclusive guaranteed large scale sales markets.
I will say what the privileged and smart few have not -- its very realistic to the real world. The richest people do only the most profitable segments of work in the job market and they are willing to hire someone to kill to protect that job market. Its lonely at the top sitting on all that money and all those dead bodies...but someone has to do it. Everyone else does their part in industry (mining ore etc) and just hopes they are not losing money but making some small but reliable profit. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Corelum Syndicate
1072
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 12:52:06 -
[106] - Quote
Proddy Scun wrote:But I think CCP's point was that teams did not involve or help large numbers of EVE industrialist...most of whom are in corps with 30+ members and doing a wide variety of industrial activity from the mining ore upperward. thus they are not specialized to take the cream jobs (buy the minerals or ore!) or operate on large enough volume products - nor do they have the access to exclusive guaranteed large scale sales markets.
I will say what the privileged and smart few have not -- its very realistic to the real world. The richest people do only the most profitable segments of work in the job market and they are willing to hire someone to kill to protect that job market. Its lonely at the top sitting on all that moeny and all those dead bodies...but someone has to do it. Everyone else does their part in industry (mining ore etc) and just hopes they are not losing money but making some small but reliable profit. *looks back at his last Team'd job* 17 *4 different Assault frigs, 15*4 different bombers, a couple of EAS, 10*3 various HAC. And I sell this in the Amarr Empire regions, markets that are not necessarily known for their large volume revenue. That is "large enough volume" for you? Because that is where I use teams on and where they give me a bonus to the meager margins. What are you talking about? |
Locke Deathroe
Clan 86 Antesignani Alliance
18
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 12:52:11 -
[107] - Quote
The problem you have in Eve these days is NOBODY wants to figure anything out on their own. The newer players in Eve most likely make up about 80% of the player base these days, older 8+ year players had to figure things out and make things work. I really like the teams, they have made it possible for T1 production to make a profit that is more in line with where they should be.
Why remove the mechanic just because idiots don't understand or use it? |
Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
65
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 13:11:05 -
[108] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Proddy Scun wrote: Bottomline: Most hi sec player corps are not big enough to mine and build that many ships etc to realize the full potential of team gains. At least not doing the full industry cycle including mining. Plus of course other corp can flock to teams system and drive up costs. And even nice big lumps of absolute profit can turn out to be not much change when divided across 100+ corp members.
And where is the problem here? I do my industry alone, occasionally and when I feel like it. I buy my minerals, in case that I want to build T1 ships, with buy orders and haul them to my preferred production plant myself. I do buy stuff for T2 production with sell orders. I do, against my posts prior to the release of teams, use them every now and then for my production and in particular in the T2 market they give me the much needed extra percent of profit to make the lengthy production of the T2 components, the lengthy production of T2 modules/ships and the lengthy logistics and sell process actually worthwhile. I do produce in a system that is not particularly interesting for the big industrial conglomerates as it is a bit more remote and would require them to put more effort into logistics and thus reduce their margins. There is no need for that all people can reap the full advantages of a feature equally. Some profit more from it because they invest more effort, manpower, time and braincells into it than others. That is perfectly fine, and actually beneficial if it happens. There is no need that everyone benefits equally from everything by approaching these things from different directions. Forcing this on the players is a big mistake. But I see CCP's and the CSM's main reason behind the removal of teams: They allow players to make money without being in space. That is apparently something that neither can allow to happen anymore. The only ways to make money should be in missions, anoms DEDs/exploration. Sitting in station and making money does not put players into enough risk. /s
IDK that is a actual problem at this time. Except that it serves only a relatively few players for CCP's coding/maintenance effort. CCP just doesn't want to t keep pushing rope uphill to benefit a handful of players. Even unused code can have bugs and needs watching for exploit activity. And this is being used a little.
CCP may also feel that those rare few major exploiters of teams will gain too much influence as time passes for too little risk and limited diplomatic skills. Limited diplomatic skils on the theory that you only need 1-2 friends in right place to become major supplier of goods to a null sec alliance and make 10s or 100s of Billions per month.
I suspect involving more players requires more cooperative ISK/planning between small fry corps than players are willing to put up with. The market would probably glut if everyone did what the current small group of mass exploiters are doing. |
|
CCP RubberBAND
CCP Engineering Corp CCP Engineering Alliance
404
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 13:21:29 -
[109] - Quote
Ransu Asanari wrote:Something that was discussed in the original thread regarding the removal that hasn't been addressed to my knowledge- Teams were being used to balance certain recent changes in Manufacturing and Invention:
- Teams are one of the only ways to get an ME reduction during a manufacturing build process
- The increased success change from the use of of Meta items used in the Invention process being removed was balanced against Teams providing additional success chance. This is on top of the original Invention changes having more complexity via different outcomes based on the success percentages, which was not implemented.
If Teams are being removed, will you be making any adjustment to the base stats in these kind of use cases?
Hello,
Been meaning to address this question as it has cropped up numerous times throughout the thread, but your main assumption is incorrect. Industry was not balanced against teams, it was balanced against cost scaling. Teams were introduced as an additional incentive for people to move and congregate.
The same is true for Invention. The loss in potential ME gains (for those who did use teams), will be monitored, but we expect the increased cost to be passed on to the buyer and not necessarily to eat into margins more. We will monitor the real life impact of this change, but everything so far is pointing to the fact that this removal in practical terms affects a small number of players.
Hope that answers your questions.
Feel free to poke me on: Twitter
|
|
Memphis Baas
25
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 13:25:58 -
[110] - Quote
Milla Goodpussy wrote:that was HIS vision.. his Vision was so out there he couldn't even see his own vision cause now he's gone from ccp... I think he needed new glasses.
You're making a mistake blaming just him (whoever); they approved the changes at management level, QA'd them, and pushed them live, it was a conscious decision by the entire company.
I also think you're all looking at industry from the wrong point of view. CCP cares about industry because it's part of their game and they care about their game, but they probably don't give a **** how much profit you're making or you could be making.
The teams were supposed to dislodge you and your trillion ISK worth of blueprints from your high-sec stations so that you could participate in "risk vs. reward" PVP. Which, for CCP, always means ship combat. And, as always, they are not willing to put up the reward that would match the risk of moving a trillion ISK worth of blueprints, so you get anemic changes like this which fail. It's like when they tried to push highsec PVE people into lowsec PVP.
It would be interesting (to me) if we could have industrialist vs. industrialist PVP, within the industry sub-game (because they'll never get industry people to jump into ships and pew-pew). But it's not possible because the industry system is a black screen - there's no scanner to tell who the competition is (manufacture, not selling), how much and what they're making, what values are stored in research POS'es or stations, etc., and there are no tools to affect someone else's production (you can declare war and shoot POSes but if they just hole up in stations they can keep producing). |
|
Soltes
Nullsec Logistics
5
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 14:10:00 -
[111] - Quote
Something doesn't sit well with me about this removal..
I think it's because I'll always now be thinking that there's a lower SCI a few jumps away. So to maximise ISK I'll have to build one batch of items, PACK UP, then move. Repeat for every batch or suffer isk loss.
With teams (even though I hate the auction system), I was happy knowing that the SCI could get to quite high levels before I need to pack up and move. |
Flay Nardieu
Forgotten Union of Knackered Tradesfolk Universal Rockstars
63
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 14:28:43 -
[112] - Quote
Good riddance to bad rubbish, although it was one of the lesser annoyances of it's expansion.
Rise up against crap improvements, bug ridden releases, and demand quality for you money!
If you disagree with me fine, but if you quote me be sure you can offer some debate.
|
Dangeresque Too
Pistols for Pandas
33
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 14:32:51 -
[113] - Quote
CCP RubberBAND wrote:The same is true for Invention. The loss in potential ME gains (for those who did use teams), will be monitored, but we expect the increased cost to be passed on to the buyer and not necessarily to eat into margins more. We will monitor the real life impact of this change, but everything so far is pointing to the fact that this removal in practical terms affects a small number of players. Seeing how CCP said this exact thing when they took good T2 production from its best near perfect invention runs (somewhere around 110-120% old base cost, compared to really bad runs, 160-200% old base cost) to be normalized to a full potential spread of 140-150% of old base mats cost.
They said the increased costs would be passed onto the buyers and not eat the margins. Can you pray tell us if the average market value of T2 items being produced has also increased by 20-30%? I'm pretty sure it hasn't. The items I was building actually got cheaper despite the change. There is now very little variance to T2 production efficiency with a promised change to counter that variance that was removed. Now you say that planned change will not happen. So even though you identified a need to fix something you broke when you put teams in, you are now saying that it is not broken at all?
|
Dangeresque Too
Pistols for Pandas
33
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 14:42:53 -
[114] - Quote
The teams overall in their current state are mostly worthless, and in most cases the bonus wasn't very much or were way to specific in the 4 separate areas they specialized in. Further if you really wanted to take advantage of teams usefulness you had to get half a dozen or more teams just to cover 1 manufacturing process. Since you had removed the variance to how well people could build (and instead just making them build faster, ooooo wow, real helpful there), we need something to help spread out the industry tasks.
Overall it would cost less dev time to just leave them in place until they can be replaced or improved.
Several ideas here that would probably see a greater use of teams:
1) An auction system that doesn't soley rely on sniping the bid at the last second. A max bid feature or even maybe a delay after the last bid to give others a chance to counter bid a snipe.
2) Since many auctions ended at very bad times for me, I was not going to alarm clock it just to take a chance I could snipe the bid, since actually putting up a bid really did nothing in the grand scheme. (would be an interesting metric on how many auctions were sniped as compared to those that held a low final bid through the end)
3) Make the teams more generic. Even the task of just finding a team that does something that helps what you are doing is probably a stopping point for people looking for teams to use. But most definitely make them far less specific in what they do.
4) Give them more meaningful boosts. Too many of the teams out there are at best 1 or 2%, and there are entirely too many .5% bonus teams that are very much useless. Heck I could spend a fraction of what it costs to snipe a team auction and buy a generic implant that does better than that. Yeah, occasionally there would be nice teams in the double digits, I've even seen a few upwards of 20% I think (though the sniping system in place discouraged me from even trying to bid).
5) Make the teams either last longer or have a wider range of influence, constellation maybe? Possibly even have way fewer teams, with better more generic bonuses, so that way if you don't get the team you want, you might not get a team at all. There were entirely too many teams on the market to begin with. If you missed one you could always get another.
6) Or institute any number of requested changes to teams when they were first put out. This is what happens when feedback is ignored, features fail.
7) My corp had actually stopped building when Crius hit. Stopped. Why? Because it was poorly implemented and needed refinement, some of which it got, so we almost got back into it but had realized our costs were now nearly double what they were before and market value for what we were trying to sell was actually lower than before, so we mostly stopped again, save for new items from patches like Bowheads, holy Bowheads making me quite a bit of ISK.
8) There was no way to tag a team auction you wanted to keep an eye on or to see what teams your system had already bid on. Your concept was that systems full of industrialists would work together to bid on teams for their system, except you gave them no means to do so. Even if your system had already bid on a team, you had no way to know who it was to coordinate more bids.
9) There was no notifications when you were out bid on an auction, not that it mattered anyways as whoever out bid you would usually get sniped at the end by someone else entirely. |
Valterra Craven
410
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 15:29:21 -
[115] - Quote
CCP RubberBAND wrote: The loss in potential ME gains (for those who did use teams), will be monitored, but we expect the increased cost to be passed on to the buyer and not necessarily to eat into margins more. We will monitor the real life impact of this change, but everything so far is pointing to the fact that this removal in practical terms affects a small number of players.
To me, this just proves why you shouldn't be removing teams... because you have no idea what you are talking about. Yes the additional cost will be passed on to buyers, but this WILL eat into margins for those using teams. The thing about teams is that they allowed you ADDITIONAL margin over your competitor. This meant that people who were willing to put in the time and effort where able to achieve better profits than everyone else who didn't. With the removal of teams everyone will be on the same playing field and will have the same margin, so for those who were using teams this is a significant nerf. Again, you guys are removing this feature for all of the wrong reasons and none of the right ones that you removed clone grades for. |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
170
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 15:31:58 -
[116] - Quote
CCP RubberBAND wrote:Ransu Asanari wrote:Something that was discussed in the original thread regarding the removal that hasn't been addressed to my knowledge- Teams were being used to balance certain recent changes in Manufacturing and Invention:
- Teams are one of the only ways to get an ME reduction during a manufacturing build process
- The increased success change from the use of of Meta items used in the Invention process being removed was balanced against Teams providing additional success chance. This is on top of the original Invention changes having more complexity via different outcomes based on the success percentages, which was not implemented.
If Teams are being removed, will you be making any adjustment to the base stats in these kind of use cases? Hello, Been meaning to address this question as it has cropped up numerous times throughout the thread, but your main assumption is incorrect. Industry was not balanced against teams, it was balanced against cost scaling. Teams were introduced as an additional incentive for people to move and congregate. The same is true for Invention. The loss in potential ME gains (for those who did use teams), will be monitored, but we expect the increased cost to be passed on to the buyer and not necessarily to eat into margins more. We will monitor the real life impact of this change, but everything so far is pointing to the fact that this removal in practical terms affects a small number of players. Hope that answers your questions.
So, you freely admit that the counter to cost scaling is being removed from the game
Are you going to monitor the costs of items that CANT be put on the market?
I am not going to put anything else in public here, but if you reply and want details, I will email you details |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Corelum Syndicate
1072
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 15:34:33 -
[117] - Quote
Proddy Scun wrote:IDK that is a actual problem at this time. Except that it serves only a relatively few players for CCP's coding/maintenance effort. CCP just doesn't want to t keep pushing rope uphill to benefit a handful of players. Even unused code can have bugs and needs watching for exploit activity. And this is being used a little.
CCP may also feel that those rare few major exploiters of teams will gain too much influence as time passes for too little risk and limited diplomatic skills. Limited diplomatic skils on the theory that you only need 1-2 friends in right place to become major supplier of goods to a null sec alliance and make 10s or 100s of Billions per month.
I suspect involving more players requires more cooperative ISK/planning between small fry corps than players are willing to put up with. The market would probably glut if everyone did what the current small group of mass exploiters are doing. Good, that would require them to pay attention to ingame features and not the NES. I can't see anything wrong with that.
Also, this feature benefits an informed and independent part of the community. Do you want to imply that being informed and independent (from big blocks and the likes) is now a punishable act in EVE, because to me it appears as if you and CCP are doing just that with defending this practice and with the removal of the teams. |
Vodiann
Beyond New Frontier The Amish Mafia
39
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 15:47:49 -
[118] - Quote
I can tell you why they were not used. It was confusing not in how to use it, but in how it was worthwhile to use.
After looking into teams i got a much better understanding, however my first impression was the two things below.
Is it best that i move where they are or do i try and throw isk at the solution thus need to do more spreadsheet math?
The result is most people will not do more work to figure out cost vs reward if the cost and reward is unclear.
Clean it up to present what the reward for a team is. EVE is in THE FUTURE, so let computers do the math and let the players reason the rest.
|
Bearcastle
Bionesis Technologies
13
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 16:00:28 -
[119] - Quote
CCP RubberBAND wrote:Ransu Asanari wrote:Something that was discussed in the original thread regarding the removal that hasn't been addressed to my knowledge- Teams were being used to balance certain recent changes in Manufacturing and Invention:
- Teams are one of the only ways to get an ME reduction during a manufacturing build process
- The increased success change from the use of of Meta items used in the Invention process being removed was balanced against Teams providing additional success chance. This is on top of the original Invention changes having more complexity via different outcomes based on the success percentages, which was not implemented.
If Teams are being removed, will you be making any adjustment to the base stats in these kind of use cases? Hello, Been meaning to address this question as it has cropped up numerous times throughout the thread, but your main assumption is incorrect. Industry was not balanced against teams, it was balanced against cost scaling. Teams were introduced as an additional incentive for people to move and congregate. The same is true for Invention. The loss in potential ME gains (for those who did use teams), will be monitored, but we expect the increased cost to be passed on to the buyer and not necessarily to eat into margins more. We will monitor the real life impact of this change, but everything so far is pointing to the fact that this removal in practical terms affects a small number of players. Hope that answers your questions.
Why not learn from mistakes and improve it. That's what a lot of entrepreneur do.
So it doesn't work the way intended, do something else, make team a part of industry with production of team, saling team. And if what is bothering is going into low sec, make team only avalaible for production in low sec and pos in low sec for example. |
Zip Girl
17
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 16:12:37 -
[120] - Quote
CCP RubberBAND wrote:Ransu Asanari wrote:Something that was discussed in the original thread regarding the removal that hasn't been addressed to my knowledge- Teams were being used to balance certain recent changes in Manufacturing and Invention:
- Teams are one of the only ways to get an ME reduction during a manufacturing build process
- The increased success change from the use of of Meta items used in the Invention process being removed was balanced against Teams providing additional success chance. This is on top of the original Invention changes having more complexity via different outcomes based on the success percentages, which was not implemented.
If Teams are being removed, will you be making any adjustment to the base stats in these kind of use cases? Hello, Been meaning to address this question as it has cropped up numerous times throughout the thread, but your main assumption is incorrect. Industry was not balanced against teams, it was balanced against cost scaling. Teams were introduced as an additional incentive for people to move and congregate. The same is true for Invention. The loss in potential ME gains (for those who did use teams), will be monitored, but we expect the increased cost to be passed on to the buyer and not necessarily to eat into margins more. We will monitor the real life impact of this change, but everything so far is pointing to the fact that this removal in practical terms affects a small number of players. Hope that answers your questions.
Considering that with all the changes that were added for T2/T3 production; the higher component requirements; the system cost index; the lowered skill requirements to build the hulls; it really makes me wonder if CCP has looked at the numbers.
Margins on most T2/T3 hulls or T2 modules are terrible with most profit now coming from a) trade profit due to the difference between buy and sell orders on the composites/minerals used; b) building on scale at a POS and using teams or if building at a station then using teams.
Thinking that producers would be able to pass on the increased costs of production to the buyers; was a pipe dream on CCP's part. This is EVE where there is a ton of people who are bad at math and believe that the minerals I mine are free. So even when they build at a loss (which they don't see that they are doing); they will still put the ships/modules up for sale at the lowest price in the various market hubs which require other producers to follow suit; and the downward spiral of pricing pressure continues.
Building an Orca as an example; a ME 10 Orca BPO and the lowest Jita sell order price for minerals needed to build the components; will give you around a 21 mil profit on the hull (building at a station and in a system with a cost index of 1.14). Building that same hull in a system with a cost index of 2.98 gives you a negative profit of 4 million (I used the eve-industry.org building calculator for the numbers). You would think that the sell price of the hull would be higher to offset the new added install costs; but that has not happened. Based on pre-crius profit margins; Orca's should be selling in the 750 to 770 range; which if you look at the markets is not happening.
Teams were the x-factor that could offset the costs added due to the system cost index and also increase the profit on the item being built.
If anything needs to be looked at it is the system cost index; in which 4 alts at a POS can spike the cost index from a .09 to almost 2.0 in a few weeks if they are building 24/7.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |